Lineages of Capital

in Historical Materialism
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

Banaji’s essays offer a powerful plea for a renewal of Marxism, a passionate argument to emancipate Marxism from the dead weight of vulgar traditions – with their simplifications, forced abstractions, mechanical reductions, generalised a-historical theorising, and familiar teleologies. To reinvigorate Marxism, argues Banaji, it is essential to use theory creatively, and recognise the need for complexity in thinking about categories. We cannot generalise about modes of production simply by referring to the forms of labour exploitation in the abstract: associate serfdom or coerced labour with feudalism, and free wage-labour with capitalism. Without historical research into the specific ways in which each economy works – its history and logic of operation – we cannot in the abstract characterise a mode of production: we only end up producing a formal evolutionary sequence of modes. Agreeing with the general thrust of the critique mounted in the book, this essay suggests that Banaji’s own arguments often reproduce the binaries and linearities he opposes, and remain framed within certain forms of reductionism.

Historical Materialism

Research in Critical Marxist Theory

Sections

References

AndersonPerry Arguments within English Marxism 1980 London Verso

BalbusIsaac D. ‘Commodity Form and Legal Form: An Essay on the “Relative Autonomy” of Law’ Law and Society Review 1977 11 3 571 588

BanajiJairus ‘For a Theory of Colonial Modes of Production’ Economic and Political Weekly 1972 7 52 2498 2502

BanajiJairus ‘Mode of Production in Indian Agriculture: A Comment’ Economic and Political Weekly 1973 8 14 679 683

BanajiJairus ‘India and the Colonial Mode of Production: Comment’ Economic and Political Weekly 1975 10 49 1887 1889 1891 1892

BanajiJairus ‘The Peasantry in the Feudal Mode of Production: Towards an Economic Model’ Journal of Peasant Studies 1976a 3 3 299 320

BanajiJairus ‘Chayanov, Kautsky, Lenin: Considerations towards a Synthesis’ Economic and Political Weekly 1976b 11 40 1594 1607

BanajiJairus ‘Capitalist Domination and the Small Peasantry: Deccan Districts in the Late-Nineteenth Century’ Economic and Political Weekly 1977a 12 33/34 [Special Number] 1375 1377 1379 1381 1383 1385 1387 1389 1391 1393 1398 1400 1401 1403 1404

BanajiJairus ‘Modes of Production in a Materialist Conception of History’ Capital and Class 1977b 1 3 1 44

BanajiJairus Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity: Gold, Labour, and Aristocratic Dominance 2001 Oxford Oxford University Press

BanajiJairus Theory as History: Essays on Modes of Production and Exploitation 2010 Leiden Brill Historical Materialism Book Series

BandyopadhyayD. ‘Tebhaga Movement in Bengal: A Retrospect’ Economic and Political Weekly 2001 36 41 3901 3903 3905 3907

BardhanPranabRudraAshok ‘Terms and Conditions of Sharecropping Contracts: An Analysis of Village Survey Data in India’ Journal of Development Studies 1980 16 3 287 302

Bengal Land Revenue Commission Report of the Land Revenue Commission, Bengal, with Minutes of Dissent 1940a Volume 1 Alipore Bengal Government Press

Bengal Land Revenue Commission Report of the Land Revenue Commission, Bengal, with Minutes of Dissent 1940b Volume 2 Alipore Bengal Government Press

BhaduriAmit ‘Cropsharing as a Labour Process: Size of Farm and Supervision Cost’ Journal of Peasant Studies 1983 10 2/3 88 93

BhattacharyaNeeladri ‘The Logic of Tenancy Cultivation: Central and Southeast Punjab, 1870–1935’ The Indian Economic and Social History Review 1983 20 2 121 170

BoseSugata Agrarian Bengal: Economy, Social Structure and Politics, 1919–1947 1986 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

BoseSugata Peasant Labour and Colonial Capital: Rural Bengal since 1770 1993 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

BremanJan Patronage and Exploitation: Changing Agrarian Relations in South Gujarat, India 1979 New Delhi Manohar

BrownWendyHalleyJanet E. Left Legalism/Left Critique 2002 Durham, NC. Duke University Press

BurkePeter ‘Strengths and Weaknesses of the History of Mentalities’ History of European Ideas 1986 7 5 439 451

BurkePeter The French Historical Revolution: The ‘Annales’ School, 1929–89 1990 Cambridge Polity Press

ChartierRoger Cultural History: Between Practices and Representations 1988 Cambridge Polity Press

ChatterjeePartha ‘Colonial State and Peasant Resistance in Bengal: 1920–1947’ Past and Present 1986 110 169 204

Critical Legal Studies Symposium Stanford Law Review 1984 36 1/2

DasguptaBiplab ‘Sharecropping in West Bengal during the Colonial Period’ Economic and Political Weekly, Review of Agriculture 1984 19 26 A85 A87 A89 A96

de CerteauMichel RendallSteven The Practice of Everyday Life 1988 [1980] Berkeley University of California Press

FreemanAlan D. ‘Truth and Mystification in Legal Scholarship’ Yale Law Journal 1981 90 5 1229 1237

GabelPeterFeinmanJay KairysDavid ‘Contract Law as Ideology’ The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique 1998 New York Basic Books

JohnsonRichard ‘Edward Thompson, Eugene Genovese and Socialist-Humanist History’ History Workshop Journal 1978 6 79 100

KayeHarvey J. McClellandKeith E.P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives 1990 Cambridge Polity Press

KennedyDuncan ‘The Structure of Blackstone’s Commentaries’ Buffalo Law Review 1979 28 211 381

KennedyDuncan ‘The Role of Law in Economic Thought: Essays on the Fetishism of Commodities’ The American University Law Review 1985 Volume 34

KennedyDuncan A Critique of Adjudication 1998 Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press

KennedyDuncan BrownHalley ‘Critique of Rights in Critical Legal Studies’ 2002 2002

KulaWitold GarnerLawrence An Economic Theory of the Feudal System: Towards a Model of the Polish Economy, 1500–1800 1976 London New Left Books

LaCapraDominick ‘Is Everyone a Mentalité Case? Transference and the “Culture” Concept’ History and Theory 1985 23 3 296 311

Martinez-AlierJuan Landowners and Labourers in Southern Spain 1971 London Allen and Unwin

Martinez-AlierJuan Hacienda, Plantations and Collective Farms: Agrarian Class Societies – Cuba and Peru 1977 London Frank Cass

Martinez-AlierJuan DuncanKennethRutledgeIanHardingColin ‘Relations of Production in Andean Haciendas: Peru’ Land and Labour in Latin America: Essays on the Development of Agrarian Capitalism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries 1978 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

MarxKarl MooreSamuelAvelingEdward Capital, Volume I 1971 [1887] Moscow Progress Publishers

MenschElizabeth V. ‘The Colonial Origins of Liberal Property Rights’ Buffalo Law Review 1982 31 635 735

PatnaikUtsa Agrarian Relations and Accumulation: The ‘Mode of Production’ Debate in India 1990 New Delhi Oxford University Press

PrakashGyan Bonded Histories: Genealogies of Labor Servitude in Colonial India 1990 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

PrakashGyan The World of the Rural Labourer in Colonial India 1994 New Delhi Oxford University Press

RancièreJacques DruryJohn The Nights of Labour: The Workers’ Dream in Nineteenth-Century France 1989 [1981] Philadelphia Temple University Press

RayDebidas ‘The Small Lessor and the Big Lessee: The Evidence from West Bengal’ Economic and Political Weekly, Review of Agriculture 1978 13 51/52 A119 A121 A124

RosaldoRenato CliffordJamesMarcusGeorge E. ‘From the Door of His Tent: The Fieldworker and the Inquisitor’ Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography 1986 Berkeley University of California

RubinIsaak Illich SamardžijaMilošPerlmanFredy Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value 1972 [1928] Detroit Black and Red

RudraAshok ‘Share-Cropping Arrangements in Western Bengal’ Economic and Political Weekly 1975 10 39 A58 A63

SartreJean-Paul Sheridan-SmithAlan Critique of Dialectical Reason, I: Theory of Practical Ensembles 1976 [1960] London Verso

ScottJames C. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance 1985 New Haven Yale University Press

ScottJames C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts 1990 New Haven Yale University Press

ScottJoan W. ‘On Language, Gender, and Working-Class History’ International Labor and Working-Class History 1987 31 1 13

SewellW.H. KayeMcClelland ‘How Classes are Made: Critical Reflections on E.P. Thompson’s Theory of Working-Class Formation’ 1990 1990

SteinbergMarc KayeMcClelland ‘ “A Way of Struggle”: Reformations and Affirmations of E.P. Thompson’s Class Analysis in the Light of Postmodern Theories of Language and Superstructure’ 1990 1990

SteinfeldRobert The Invention of Free Labour: The Employment Relation in English and American Law and Culture, 1350–1870 1991 Chapel Hill University of North Carolina Press

SteinfeldRobert Coercion, Contract, and Free Labour in the Nineteenth Century 2001 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

SteinfeldRobert J.EngermanStanley L. BrassTomvan der LindenMarcel ‘Labour – Free or Coerced?’ Free and Unfree Labour: The Debate Continues 1997 Berne Peter Lang

ThompsonEdward Palmer Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the Black Act 1977 Harmondsworth Penguin

ThompsonEdward Palmer The Making of the English Working Class 1980 [1963] Harmondsworth Penguin

ThompsonEdward Palmer Customs in Common: Studies in Traditional Popular Culture 1991 London Merlin Press

TuschlingBurkhard ‘Production Relations, Law and State’ 1979 mimeograph translated by Jagabandhu Acharya

UngerRoberto Mangabeira The Critical Legal Studies Movement 1983 Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press

WoodE.M. KayeMcClelland ‘Falling through the Cracks: E.P. Thompson and the Debate on Base and Superstructure’ 1990 1990

YeoEileenYeoStephen Popular Culture and Class Conflict, 1590–1914: Explorations in the History of Labour and Leisure 1981 Brighton Harvester Press

4.

Banaji 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976a, 1976b, 1977a, and 1977b. Not all these essays are part of the collection Theory as History. In his earliest piece (1972) production relations are differentiated from relations of exploitation in the following terms: ‘We may define relations of exploitation as the particular form in which surplus is appropriated from the direct producers . . . Relations of production, on the other hand, are the specific historically determined form which particular relations of exploitation assume due to a certain level of development of the productive forces, to the predominance of particular property forms (feudal landed property etc.) and so on. Thus in the strict sense, feudalism is not the same as serfdom, . . . capitalism cannot be defined in terms of the existence or non-existence of wage labour, for the latter is only transformed into the capitalist relation of production under certain historical connections, . . .’ In his later essays, the notion of relations of production is specified slightly differently, emphasising the logic and rationality more emphatically. See Banaji 1976a.

5.

Banaji 1977a.

6.

Banaji 1976a.

7.

Banaji 2001; also Banaji 2010, Chapters 6–8.

8.

Banaji 2010, Chapter 9.

9.

Banaji 2010. See in particular Chapter 3.

12.

Banaji 2010.

13.

Martinez-Alier 1971.

15.

See Martinez-Alier 1977 and 1978.

16.

Martinez-Alier 1977, pp. 45ff.

17.

Martinez-Alier 1977, p. 45.

21.

Banaji 2010, p. 131.

22.

Banaji 2010, pp. 133–4.

23.

Banaji 2010, p. 131.

24.

Banaji 2010, p. 132.

26.

Marx 1971, p. 717.

27.

Steinfeld and Engerman 1997.

28.

Steinfeld 1991 and 2001.

29.

Rancière 1989.

30.

de Certeau 1988; Rancière 1989.

32.

Steinfeld 1991 and 2001.

33.

Steinfeld and Engerman 1997.

34.

Kennedy 1985, 1998 and 2002; Steinfeld 1991 and 2001.

37.

Rubin 1972; Tuschling 1979.

38.

Marx 1971, p. 77.

39.

Banaji 2010, p. 106.

40.

See Burke 1986 and 1990; Chartier 1988, Chapter 1; LaCapra 1985; Rosaldo 1986.

41.

Yeo and Yeo 1981.

43.

Banaji 2010, p. 42.

44.

Breman 1979.

46.

Prakash 1990.

47.

Banaji 1976a.

48.

Kula 1976.

49.

Banaji 1976b.

51.

Banaji 2010, pp. 46–7.

52.

Banaji 2010, p. 112.

53.

Bengal Land Revenue Commission 1940a, p. 69.

55.

Bengal Land Revenue Commission 1940b.

56.

Bhattacharya 1983. On the complicated picture in India after Independence, see Ray 1978; Rudra 1975; Bardhan and Rudra 1980; Bhaduri 1983.

57.

Banaji 2010, p. 6.

58.

Banaji 1977a; Banaji 2010, Chapter 10. The argument is developed also in Banaji 2010, Chapter 12.

59.

Banaji 2010, p. 103.

60.

See Banaji 2010, pp. 43–4. Banaji ends his conclusion to the book with the following argument: ‘In short, the theoretical distinction we need here is one between capitalism in this more general sense, a sense which allows for the commercial capitalism of the twelfth to eighteenth centuries, and what Marx himself called the “capitalist mode of production”. The latter is only a historically developed form of capitalism in the more general sense which, in this way, acquires a wider purchase and helps resolve problems that continue to mystify Marxists.’ (Banaji 2010, p. 358.) The linear schema of the succession of modes made familiar by the transition debate is replaced here with a different linearity. The shift is from the ‘initial stages’ to ‘developed’ forms, capitalism in the general sense, to the specifically capitalist mode of production. Emerging in embryonic forms, operating in diverse configurations, capital ultimately matures into forms that are seen as typical to the fully developed capitalist mode of production.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 7 7 6
Full Text Views 10 10 10
PDF Downloads 5 5 5
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0